It suits the taste of our times to study attitudes towards the
marginal and the different in Antiquity; yet for most physical
abnormalities evidence is largely lacking. Véronique Dasen opens
her book
(a revision of her Oxford D.Phil. thesis) with the
question: "In ancient Egypt and Greece physical beauty, defined in terms
of proportion, was highly admired, even to excess. What happened to those
who conformed neither to these 'ideal proportions' nor to norms of human
appearance?" (1). She attempts to answer this question with particular
reference to dwarfs. Dwarfism (defined as "an abnormally short stature
over three standard deviations below the mean height of a population of
the same age and sex" [7]) offers more favourable conditions for such a
study than most physical abnormalities. It is comparatively common (D.
quotes a rate of occurrence of 1 per 10,000 live births for all forms of
dwarfism, 1 per 34,000 for the most common type, achondroplasia); and
those afflicted have a good chance of living
to maturity, and having normal mental development. It is visually
distinctive (unlike, say, deafness), and easy for artists to represent;
and it can be recognised in skeletal remains where these have been
properly studied.

The book opens with a chapter on the typology of
growth disorders, including a table of the main types of dwarfism and
their clinical features. Although this is useful to introduce the modern
reader to the technical vocabulary, its relevance to the main part of the
book is limited. There is no sign in the literature D. quotes of any
understanding, either in Egypt or Greece, of the nature of the disorder,
or of the difference between the various forms. The iconographic
conventions adopted for the portrayal of dwarfs sometimes give a very
realistic rendering of the most striking characteristics of
achondroplasia; the attempts (which D. discusses in chapter 4) to diagnose
other forms of dwarfism on the basis of the artistic representations are
very dubious. Analysis of skeletal remains (discussed in chapter 2)
sometimes allows diagnosis, mostly of achondroplasia, occasionally of
other conditions; but the number of examples well enough preserved and
studied to be of value for palaeopathology is small (only one skeleton of
a Greek dwarf is known, about 20, whole or in part, from Egypt). Chapter 1
also introduces a matter which complicates the study of both Egyptian and
Greek dwarfs (and, for that matter, Roman): that of the central African
pygmies. These are not always clearly distinguished from clinical dwarfs
in either language, and it is clear that they had a considerable influence
both upon the religious associations of dwarfs in Egypt, and upon the
iconographic formulae. In Greek and Roman art, the most common scenes in
which dwarfs are portrayed are those derived from the legends of the
pygmies; representations of "real" human dwarfs are almost inextricably
intertwined.

The section on Egypt opens with a discussion on the
terminology. This is beyond the competence of this reviewer; D.
distinguishes three words, dng, nmw, and hw', but
concludes that the differences between them are not clear, although
dng (the earliest of them) appears to be used to denote a pygmy.
The general chapter on iconographic conventions which follows is of value
mainly for drawing attention to the problems of identification of dwarfs
in an art such as Egyptian which
uses hierarchical variations of scale. In most cases, the physical
disproportions need to be shown clearly, which means that only the
disproportionate forms of dwarfism can be recognised.

Three
chapters (5-7) on dwarf gods follow, the longest devoted to Bes. The
iconography of Bes has been thoroughly studied, and D. confines herself to
a synopsis of the chronological development. More interesting for the
present study are the questions
of the functions of Bes and other dwarf gods, and their relationship to
the major gods, since these are likely to have affected the position of
human dwarfs. These functions are largely protective, in part because of
fertility associations, in part as manifestations of the sun-god (and
sometimes other deities). The specific role of dwarfism in these
identities, however, remains obscure; D. acknowledges that the reason for
the transformation of Bes from his original leonine form into a grinning
dwarf is not clear, and can only suggest that it may "have incorporated a
belief in dwarfs as familiar protective beings which goes as far back as
the Predynastic Period" (83).

The chapter on Human Dwarfs (9) is
based overwhelmingly on the evidence of art, for the most part funerary.
Written evidence is very sparse. The art is spread over three millennia,
though distribution between different periods is not even. Most
informative for D.'s purposes are the Old Kingdom reliefs, where dwarfs are
frequently represented as part of the household in royal and noble tombs,
and conclusions can be drawn about the roles that they played, as personal
attendants, tenders of animals, entertainers dancing and making music,
and as jewelers. Captions in several cases give their titles. A few
examples are known of higher-status dwarfs who appear themselves as the
owners of the tombs. The best-known example is the tomb at Giza of Seneb,
whose
statue-group with his (normal-sized) wife and children forms the book's
frontispiece. He was also shown in reliefs from the tomb, which steer an
uneasy compromise between the representation of his physical
disproportions, and the requirements of rank which would portray him on a
larger scale than his servants. Less informative about the actual status
of dwarfs are the figurines which predominate in the Middle Kingdom, while
there is a remarkable absence of dwarfs in household scenes from the New
Kingdom,
when in contrast the numbers of dwarf-gods increase. From the Late Period
one exceptionally fine example is the sarcophagus of the dwarf Djeho,
whose naked figure is carved in profile on the lid, with remarkably
accurate rendering of the features of achondroplasia. Inscriptions relate
that he belonged to the household of a high official, and that he
performed sacred dances at the burials of the Apis and Mnevis bulls.

The Egyptian material is therefore heterogeneous, but does permit some
conclusions about the status of human dwarfs. Examples exist which show
dwarfs like Seneb thoroughly integrated into society, though they are few,
and it is not clear what were the
conditions which made this possible. The greater part of the evidence
shows dwarfs as members of the households of the wealthy, used to mark the
prestige of their masters and as entertainers, analogous to their role as
jesters and pets in later periods. More enigmatic are the religious
associations; it seems that they may have benefited from the association
with the various dwarf-gods, and that they performed as dancers in ritual
contexts. D.'s conclusion, that "ancient Egyptians welcomed short statured
people", perhaps goes beyond what the evidence will bear; but she is right
in concluding that there are no signs of rejection or exclusion.

The Greek material covered by D. is very different in scope. She covers
only the Archaic and Classical periods; Hellenistic and Roman dwarfs are
excluded. The quantity of the material explains such an exclusion, but the
result is somewhat lopsided. The reader will not find in this book any
mention of the dwarfs from the late Hellenistic Mahdia shipwreck, for
instance, probably the most striking dwarf representations to survive from
Antiquity, nor any discussion of the development of "realism" or of
caricature in Greek art after ca. 300 BC. This is regrettable, for one
thing,
because it excludes one of the areas where the two traditions discussed in
the book may meet. The section on Egypt includes some mention of
representations of Bes and other dwarf deities in the Ptolemaic and
Graeco-Roman periods. The section on human dwarfs in Egypt ends with the
statement: "In Hellenistic Egypt, human dwarfs appear only in objects in
the Greek tradition. Some of these representations reflect Egyptian
conceptions of dwarfism, but in a new iconography. I mention here the
widespread motif of the dwarf dancer, often with an overlarge phallus,
which expresses the traditional association of dwarfs with fertility and
regeneration" (155). This is potentially rich ground, but it is not
developed; the mention is left without connection with the second part of
the book. This in turn refers to the position of dwarfs in the Hellenistic
and Roman periods only in a brief dismissive statement at the very end, as
"centuries of exclusion", when "dwarfism is no longer distinguished by
special religious associations" (247): an over-simplification, which omits
precisely the question she had earlier raised. Cultic associations, with
Isis and Dionysus, have indeed been suggested for some Hellenistic and
Graeco-Roman dwarfs, including the Mahdia trio.1

The Greek material that is covered here
does not distribute itself evenly. Mentions of human dwarfs in literary
sources are very sparse, with the exception of Aristotle; the medical
writers, for instance, have nothing to say about the condition. Dwarfish
figures occur in myths (chapter 13), principally in the guise of pygmies.
D. examines the literary accounts of pygmies (not only those from the
period under discussion) at some length, with much enquiry into the
origins and functions of the myth, which she suggests answers archetypal
fears about, for instance, "the geographic and the genetic unknown". She
concludes "The myth also accounts for the presence of pathological dwarfs
at Athens. Physical abnormality becomes an exotic feature. Dwarfs appear
thus as liminal, wild, but inoffensive beings, like powerless pygmies"
(188). But in the archaic period pygmies are not shown as dwarfs, in any
recognisable pathological sense; they are normally formed small men. The
more interesting question, which D. does not answer, would appear to be
why pygmies came to be identified by artists with pathological dwarfs
(apparently in the early fifth century) -- an identification which endured
into the Roman period; archetypal fears are not necessarily relevant
here.

The works of art discussed fall into two main groups. The
numerically larger consists of figurines, almost all of terracotta, of
East Greek type but found all over the Mediterranean. They date from a
period of fifty years in the middle of the sixth century, and show fat,
standing dwarfish figures. Some carry a smaller figure, probably a child,
others a basket or a shield. D. identifies them as derived from Egyptian
figurines showing dwarf deities, Bes or Ptah-Patoikos, which are found as
votives at Greek sanctuaries from the seventh century onwards, and
believes that they transmit the Egyptian notion of dwarfs as protective
guardians of the family. The short-lived nature of the fashion, however,
suggests that this notion did not go very deep. Secondly, there are the
vase-paintings, predominantly Attic red-figure of the second half of the
fifth century. These might seem to offer the best hope of answering the
questions that really interest D., what were the normal attitudes towards
dwarfs and their status in society; yet the material is recalcitrant.
Only 39 vases are listed by D. as showing human dwarfs (as opposed to
pygmies etc.). Some of these are extraordinarily fine studies of abnormal
pathology, like the fragment of a stamnos by the Peleus Painter in
Erlangen (pl.47.1); others are daubs, and the identification as dwarfs is
by no means always clear. Only a few show the dwarf in a clearly
identifiable context; even those that do, like the Clinic Painter's
aryballos where the dwarf attends the doctor's surgery, give inadequate
clues to his role: is he the doctor's servant, or one of the patients?
There are some scenes where the dwarf is clearly a servant or attendant,
though this is never as explicit as in the Egyptian scenes. Others show
them engaged in the same sorts of activities as normal-sized Athenians;
but again interpretation of these runs into problems. Can one deduce from
the scene of two dwarfs exercising with a punching-bag that dwarfs might
be admitted to the palaestra like other citizens, or has the artist
substituted them for comic or satiric effect? Are the dancing dwarfs
entertainers, or are they komasts? D. can only conclude cautiously that
they do not differ in clothing or behaviour from other citizens, but that
there are signs of a liminal and ambiguous status.

The
association of dwarfs with Dionysiac scenes seems at least to be clearer;
the Erlangen fragment, for instance, shows its dwarf wreathed with ivy
dancing among musicians, while a bell krater in Zurich has a dwarf dancing
with a tympanon in the presence of Dionysus, a satyr, and maenads. Even
so, the number of vases which explicitly associate dwarfs with Dionysus is
very small. Their relationship to satyrs, with whom they share various
iconographical features, leads D. to see them as deeply involved
in the thiasos, capable of substituting for satyrs. This cultic role, she
believes, will have further helped to bring about their integration into
society.

It must be admitted that the evidence on which D.
endeavours to base her picture of the status of Greek dwarfs is very thin,
though she does her utmost to squeeze information from it. Some evidence
is negative: that there is only one picture of a female dwarf (on a
skyphos in Munich) does indeed imply that they were not accepted to the
same extent as male -- that the conventions of representation, for
whatever reason, could not admit female deformity. Rather than stressing
the unanswerable question of
real-life status, perhaps it would be better to concentrate on the
contributions of the artists. Because they were not subject to the same
conventions as ordinary human figures, dwarfs offered the artists a
freedom to experiment, to observe, to introduce
variety: this was what they had in common with satyrs, and to some extent
with foreigners. It is well known that the rendering of such liminal types
provided opportunities for portraiture and for expression that were absent
in more "normal" subjects. The
best of the vase-paintings reveal a fascination with the observation of
physical difference, of a man who did not appear quite human, which gives
their dwarfs an infinitely greater liveliness than the stock "normal"
figures who accompany them.

D.'s book is full of fascinating
information; she has cast her net wide, and the material, textual and
visual, that she has collected throws light on a wide range of questions,
social, religious, artistic, and medical. This light tends to flicker; the
nature of the evidence does not permit clear answers to all the questions
that D. would like to ask. But despite the inevitable gaps, D's book gives
an engrossing insight into some very different aspects of the ancient
world.2